Just three days after the Motion Picture Association of America brought a civil lawsuit against Megaupload, the Recording Industry Association of America has jumped in with its own case.

In addition to the existing criminal copyright infringement case being prosecuted by the Justice Department in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Thursday lawsuit now brings to three the number of lawsuits filed against Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and his colleagues.

Dotcom and the others were initially arrested in a botched January 2012 raid on his mansion estate in New Zealand. He has since been fighting local authorities to prevent his extradition to the United States—that trial could be held as early as July.

“Our first response is that the RIAA, the MPAA, and the DOJ are like three blind mice following each other in the pursuit of meritless copyright claims,” said Ira Rothken, Dotcom's California-based attorney. “We believe that the claims against Megaupload are really an assault by Hollywood on cloud storage in general as Megaupload used copyright neutral technology and whatever allegations they can make against Megaupload they can make against YouTube, Dropbox, and others. And we believe that at the end of the day that the court will find their claims to be without merit and that the court will find that Megaupload and the others will prevail.”

Coldplay, Nickelback, and Jay-Z

The allegations in the RIAA's 30-page complaint are similar to previous accusations listed in the MPAA and criminal case. It alleges direct copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement, among other things.

As the RIAA suit states:

To ensure a vast and ever-growing supply of popular copyrighted content to which they could sell premium access, Defendants paid users to upload popular content to Megaupload’s servers. Defendants’ Uploader Rewards program promised premium subscribers cash and other financial incentives if they uploaded popular works, primarily copyrighted works, to Megaupload’s servers. The rewards program also encouraged users to publicly promote links to that content, so that the content would be widely downloaded.

Although the Uploader Rewards program’s financial incentives changed over the life of Megaupload, during the time period most relevant to this Complaint, Defendants offered one reward point each time that a user’s file was downloaded, and offered the user rewards ranging from free premium membership subscriptions all the way to cash awards of as much as $10,000.

The suit includes a long list of 87 songs the recording industry said were available on Megaupload, including titles by Kings of Leon, Pink, Shakira, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Coldplay, Nickelback, and Jay-Z, among others.

“We filed the suit for several reasons, one of them being that the DOJ recently released specific evidence in the case that we reviewed and found to be compelling enough to bring a civil suit since it made clear that massive copyright infringement of music had taken place,” Cara Duckworth Weiblinger, an RIAA spokesperson, told Ars via e-mail. “Also, the statute of limitations was a factor that we had to consider in our decision on whether or not to bring a civil suit.”

She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload, and she noted: “There wasn’t much of a relationship with MPAA either except that their copyright infringement issues are similar to ours.”

Stay with me

Megaupload’s counsel strongly denied Megaupload’s culpability.

“There were strict prohibitions that rewards programs users had to agree to where they promised not to infringe on copyright and the amount of money paid out in the rewards program was so small that it was a rounding error on Megaupload’s total revenue,” Rothken added, noting that the rewards system was ended “approximately six months” before the indictment as it “wasn’t very useful.”

“Megaupload had in place a robust notice and takedown system,” he said, a proposition federal authorities strongly dispute.

Rothken declined to state precisely how much that “rounding error” was, but federal authorities have accused Dotcom of making $175 million.

For now though, Rothken expects the MPAA and RIAA suits to be put on hold, as was the first civil case filed against Megaupload in March 2012.

US District Judge Liam O’Grady stayedMicrohits et al v. Megaupload et al earlier this year—as of now, that order will expire on August 1, 2014. That case was also filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, the same federal district where the MPAA and now the RIAA suits were filed.

“We expect that the MPAA and the RIAA actions will be stayed because the evidence that’s needed to prosecute and defend the cases are stuck in servers that are being held in a secure warehouse in a Virginia by [Megaupload’s online host] Carpathia, so that creates logistical issues,” Rothken concluded.

Oh well at least it'll put a stop to the IPO. No ones going to underwrite a company that has this many lawsuits against it. I doubt it'll take much to prove the new Mega is just the old MegaUpload trying to skirt the law, just like Prenda isn't getting away with it either.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

A company entity, even a foreign company entity, is subject to U.S. law for any financial transaction or thing to do with that transaction, conducted in or through the United States. Its the same in 90% of other countries as well for subjecting the company entity, even a foreign company entity, to the laws of that country for any financial transaction, or things to do with that transaction, conducted in or through that country. For those transactions or things to do with those transactions, the DMCA doesn't apply. DotCom through the "Mega enterprises", because DotCom is the primary business entity of the "Mega enterprises", conducted financial transactions in or through the U.S. so is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. He, as a business entity, leased servers in the U.S. and used pay services based in the U.S. that involved and supported the payments or income made concerning the infringing material and the servers supported that enterprise.

If there had been no payments (or income) to others concerning infringing material then maybe some argument of the DMCA could apply, but once there was that financial transaction happened in or through the U.S. it became criminal copyright infringement and thus the criminal case.

payment for, or income from, infringement also applies to civil copyright infringement but is applied in a different context dealing primarily with the infringement its self so its possible a DMCA argument could have weight but if financial transactions for or concerning the infringing material in or through the U.S were involved the DMCA would not apply as one can not effectively claim DMCA protection while paying people for, or making income as a result of, the infringing material.

DMCA is negated as a protection defense as DMCA does not protect payment for, or income from, infringement. That's essentially basically what DotCom is accused of, payment for, or income from, infringement.

Now it remains for the government to prove their criminal case, and for the MPAA and RIAA to prove their civil case.

Then why wait twenty-seven months before doing anything? The DoJ committed criminal acts in the pursuit of Dotcom, they intentionally tainted evidence by illegally, as found in a court of law, removing the context with the assistance of a private entity (NZFACT, which is NOT a government agency) in the raid, along with an FBI agent on the ground at the compound (in spite of the fact that the FBI's province wsi within the federal jurisdiction, and not extra-national).

IT just smacks of corporate bullying, and doesn't actually endear anyone ot their cause.

I'm assuming you are referring to the MPAA and RIAA cases and you are assuming the MPAA and RIAA are using the evidence from the NZ case. They could make their case based upon the infringing material or information found from the server seizures here in the U.S. However, since civil infringement needs the infringement to be discovered and doesn't require discovery to have been generated by investigative or discovery efforts of the party bringing the suit (its only needed that it was discovered, the law doesn't prescribe by what manner it needs to be discovered), with the criminal case evidence recently released by the DOJ it would be considered "discovered" simply through the DOJ released evidence and was compelling enough to bring suit, if that evidence is from the server's seized in the U.S. then nothing from NZ has any bearing. The "beyond reasonable doubt" and "fruit of the poison tree" burden doesn't exist in civil lawsuits like it does in criminal cases, its only needed to show the court or jury to a degree of reasonable certainty that it did happen. Now remains the MPAA and RIAA burden to show the court or jury to a reasonable degree of certainty that it did happen, if they don't they don't and if they do they do.

The time doesn't matter as long as its filed before the statute of limitations or some other statutory time requirement expires.Their case, their time table.

this seems a bit suspect. how come the DoJ has released information to both the MPAA and the RIAA now, but5 when Dotcome asks to be shown the evidence to be used against him, he is denied. on top of that, remember the DoJ broke the law by removing evidence, the HDDs, from NZ when ordered not to by the court. had it been the opposite way round, the DoJ would have gone absolutely ape shit!! how can anyone prepare a defense if they dont know what they are charged with and on what evidence the accusations are based?? the DoJ remember, hijacked the servers and the HDDs, preventing everyone from getting back their files. from what i read those servers are still locked away, gathering dust, until, that is, the DoJ wants to look at something else to try to verify a charge and refute anything Dotcom says.

Im thinkin with this,when somebody uploaded something and it was said to be 'downloaded',it was actually something that was 'viewed' -via a web flash content thing. ? Or it was actually full file downloaded . Then the stuff that was uploaded was both authorized,and unauthorized content from stuff that was grabbed off of the tv screens ?

Then viewed worldwide via the web. The content was user generated,and viewed with a flash generated viewing. The user generated content was mostly stuff grabed from TV screens. ? Links to users files,where distributed between account holders of megaupload. Megaupload, had advertisers,and sponsors.

And Megaupload had many take down notices for links to the user generated content.

Certainly can't get enough tv in the third world. TV with Flash thats even a little better.

I don't know if you were meaning something different, but regardless of how you "view" content on the internet, it is always downloaded to your computer and played. It could be playing while it downloads (streaming), or it could be playing after it's downloaded (web sites, torrents, etc). And in some cases the content is deleted after the playing (streaming, typically).

But regardless of the methods of play, if you're reading, watching, and/or listening to something on the internet, you have downloaded it. It just may not be a permanent copy in the end, but that's mostly irrelevant to the legality.

I don't understand what basis or possible outcome the MPAA and RIAA have in these civil cases, given the DOJ case is a criminal case.

If the DOJ case fails (assuming it's actually tried in court), then doesn't Double Jeopardy apply? And although law rarely follows common sense, surely double jeopardy's related 'Blockburger' defence means a civil suit is enveloped in the wake of a criminal case, as it's supposed to have been tried to a more stringent test.

Similarly, if the DOJ succeeds, Dotcom et al will be sent to jail, and as the assets are already seized, these 'criminal proceeds' would then go to the aggrieved (ie the MPAA and RIAA) anyway, meaning there'd be nothing left for the outcome of the civil suits.

So my question is exactly how are these cases even relevant or even have a hope to get anything, or is it as Dotcom says and the DOJ case will fall down completely (in which case there will be no basis for extradition and the RIAA and MPAA have the same problems about being served as the DOJ had).

I don't understand what basis or possible outcome the MPAA and RIAA have in these civil cases, given the DOJ case is a criminal case.

If the DOJ case fails (assuming it's actually tried in court), then doesn't Double Jeopardy apply? And although law rarely follows common sense, surely double jeopardy's related 'Blockburger' defence means a civil suit is enveloped in the wake of a criminal case, as it's supposed to have been tried to a more stringent test.

Similarly, if the DOJ succeeds, Dotcom et al will be sent to jail, and as the assets are already seized, these 'criminal proceeds' would then go to the aggrieved (ie the MPAA and RIAA) anyway, meaning there'd be nothing left for the outcome of the civil suits.

So my question is exactly how are these cases even relevant or even have a hope to get anything, or is it as Dotcom says and the DOJ case will fall down completely (in which case there will be no basis for extradition and the RIAA and MPAA have the same problems about being served as the DOJ had).

The **AA cartels then get to run around with a huge judgement to show the children and scare them.They will use it as leverage to get even more overbroad laws to abuse.It isn't about getting money, it is about scaring people to do what they want.The longer they can keep Dotcom tied up in court, they better chance they have of winning by virtue of who has the bigger wallet. See also VIacom v. Google.

I don't understand what basis or possible outcome the MPAA and RIAA have in these civil cases, given the DOJ case is a criminal case.

If the DOJ case fails (assuming it's actually tried in court), then doesn't Double Jeopardy apply? And although law rarely follows common sense, surely double jeopardy's related 'Blockburger' defence means a civil suit is enveloped in the wake of a criminal case, as it's supposed to have been tried to a more stringent test.

Similarly, if the DOJ succeeds, Dotcom et al will be sent to jail, and as the assets are already seized, these 'criminal proceeds' would then go to the aggrieved (ie the MPAA and RIAA) anyway, meaning there'd be nothing left for the outcome of the civil suits.

So my question is exactly how are these cases even relevant or even have a hope to get anything, or is it as Dotcom says and the DOJ case will fall down completely (in which case there will be no basis for extradition and the RIAA and MPAA have the same problems about being served as the DOJ had).

To answer your question quickly, you have a misunderstanding of double jeopardy. It just stops the state or federal government from prosecuting you twice for the same offense. It does not stop a private party from bringing a civil suit against someone. The most popular example is the OJ Simpson case. He was found not guilty by a jury, but taken to the cleaners in civil court. Also if Dotcom ens up being convicted I cannot even hazard a case what his sentence will be. That is determined at a sentencing hearing, but there is no saying either way if Dotcom will become judgment proof or see a day in jail until the sentencing hearing. So he may have money left over, or he may be completely broke.

Also what you need to keep in mind is that the MPAA and RIAA may not even be hoping to get any money from Dotcom, but instead to send a message to other people hosting file lockers/sharing sites. Look at any of the lawsuits brought against individuals, they spent way more money on the case than they'd ever hope to recover from the defendants.

Just a quick note on jurisdiction, (its been awhile so correct me if I'm a little outdated or mistaken), Dotcom's legal counsel can attempt to claim a lack of jurisdiction over him, but a very quick analysis would say he'd most likely fail in the civil suit due to his servers being in Virginia. If I remember correctly, the controlling cases are still International shoe, and world wide Volkswagen. Though the supreme court has done a really crappy job of actually defining/clarifying a test to determine jurisdiction, what it comes down to is whether there is minimal contact with the state and whether it would be fair to a defendant to have a trial in a certain jurisdiction. A good rule of thumb is could the defendant foresee being hailed into court/ or availing themselves of the court of a jurisdiction.

Without having all the facts or a look at the contract between carpathia(sp?) and Dotcom it seems that the minimal contact with them was there. They had used them for a few years, without any signs of them moving away from them. If carpathia were to not provide its service and breach the contract, it's very likely Dotcom would file a suit against them in Virginia. Or the opposite if Dotcom never paid his bill, he could reasonably foresee being hailed into court by them.

This was a super short response to a few things in the thread, and almost certainly NOT LEGAL ADVICE and I do not stand by the validity of any of my comments.

this seems a bit suspect. how come the DoJ has released information to both the MPAA and the RIAA now, but5 when Dotcome asks to be shown the evidence to be used against him, he is denied. on top of that, remember the DoJ broke the law by removing evidence, the HDDs, from NZ when ordered not to by the court. had it been the opposite way round, the DoJ would have gone absolutely ape shit!! how can anyone prepare a defense if they dont know what they are charged with and on what evidence the accusations are based?? the DoJ remember, hijacked the servers and the HDDs, preventing everyone from getting back their files. from what i read those servers are still locked away, gathering dust, until, that is, the DoJ wants to look at something else to try to verify a charge and refute anything Dotcom says.

Hmmm. Perhaps the lesson here is if you're in a business that operates in a legal gray area, and you suspect you may have to produce a legal defense some day, and the material critical to your defense is data that's on a machine that is itself subject to seizure ... Oh, I don't know ... make a backup?

Im thinkin with this,when somebody uploaded something and it was said to be 'downloaded',it was actually something that was 'viewed' -via a web flash content thing. ? Or it was actually full file downloaded . Then the stuff that was uploaded was both authorized,and unauthorized content from stuff that was grabbed off of the tv screens ?

Then viewed worldwide via the web. The content was user generated,and viewed with a flash generated viewing. The user generated content was mostly stuff grabed from TV screens. ? Links to users files,where distributed between account holders of megaupload. Megaupload, had advertisers,and sponsors.

And Megaupload had many take down notices for links to the user generated content.

Certainly can't get enough tv in the third world. TV with Flash thats even a little better.

I don't know if you were meaning something different, but regardless of how you "view" content on the internet, it is always downloaded to your computer and played. It could be playing while it downloads (streaming), or it could be playing after it's downloaded (web sites, torrents, etc). And in some cases the content is deleted after the playing (streaming, typically).

But regardless of the methods of play, if you're reading, watching, and/or listening to something on the internet, you have downloaded it. It just may not be a permanent copy in the end, but that's mostly irrelevant to the legality.

Megaupload,is a tricky business model. Users dont wear the same mask that MPAA,and RIAA does. Megaupload made money for that model. And any model succeeding based on copyrighted that is a deficit to any holder. Users aren't necesarily self-employed,and proprietors are not exactly the management.

But the concept of rights holders,and use are not completely resolved by copyright law.

I would say do not put your 'fair-use',on to the web .

I'm just trying to sort through what was a normal state of 'behavior'- if you will. What actually was the Megaupload model of interaction.

If its a civil,verses civil thing. The users become third party. Megaupload should just settle,and rearange the model that offends the copyright holders.

This is going on 7 or 8 years past now. The effect of interaction,and engagement within Internet has many different customs type relationships. (customs,no punn intended).

You can't explain copyright to most 4th year college students,moreover,the authorization(s) emplementation between copyright holders themselves.

Na. If it was streamed,it was a public exhibition. A public exhibition with private viewing.

There is not an internet tax,or a media tax - as tax paid on CDs,tapes etc.. For this type of thing. The sort of thing that keeps the private argument private,and the public within itself happy.

As said by one poster,there was not a 'royalty paid'to copyright holders. But again,that is contract bearing issues. Authorizations are 'past tense'obligations. Known persons involved ...and so on.

I don't understand what basis or possible outcome the MPAA and RIAA have in these civil cases, given the DOJ case is a criminal case.

If the DOJ case fails (assuming it's actually tried in court), then doesn't Double Jeopardy apply? And although law rarely follows common sense, surely double jeopardy's related 'Blockburger' defence means a civil suit is enveloped in the wake of a criminal case, as it's supposed to have been tried to a more stringent test.

Similarly, if the DOJ succeeds, Dotcom et al will be sent to jail, and as the assets are already seized, these 'criminal proceeds' would then go to the aggrieved (ie the MPAA and RIAA) anyway, meaning there'd be nothing left for the outcome of the civil suits.

So my question is exactly how are these cases even relevant or even have a hope to get anything, or is it as Dotcom says and the DOJ case will fall down completely (in which case there will be no basis for extradition and the RIAA and MPAA have the same problems about being served as the DOJ had).

To answer your question quickly, you have a misunderstanding of double jeopardy. It just stops the state or federal government from prosecuting you twice for the same offense. It does not stop a private party from bringing a civil suit against someone. The most popular example is the OJ Simpson case. He was found not guilty by a jury, but taken to the cleaners in civil court. Also if Dotcom ens up being convicted I cannot even hazard a case what his sentence will be. That is determined at a sentencing hearing, but there is no saying either way if Dotcom will become judgment proof or see a day in jail until the sentencing hearing. So he may have money left over, or he may be completely broke.

Also what you need to keep in mind is that the MPAA and RIAA may not even be hoping to get any money from Dotcom, but instead to send a message to other people hosting file lockers/sharing sites. Look at any of the lawsuits brought against individuals, they spent way more money on the case than they'd ever hope to recover from the defendants.

Just a quick note on jurisdiction, (its been awhile so correct me if I'm a little outdated or mistaken), Dotcom's legal counsel can attempt to claim a lack of jurisdiction over him, but a very quick analysis would say he'd most likely fail in the civil suit due to his servers being in Virginia. If I remember correctly, the controlling cases are still International shoe, and world wide Volkswagen. Though the supreme court has done a really crappy job of actually defining/clarifying a test to determine jurisdiction, what it comes down to is whether there is minimal contact with the state and whether it would be fair to a defendant to have a trial in a certain jurisdiction. A good rule of thumb is could the defendant foresee being hailed into court/ or availing themselves of the court of a jurisdiction.

Without having all the facts or a look at the contract between carpathia(sp?) and Dotcom it seems that the minimal contact with them was there. They had used them for a few years, without any signs of them moving away from them. If carpathia were to not provide its service and breach the contract, it's very likely Dotcom would file a suit against them in Virginia. Or the opposite if Dotcom never paid his bill, he could reasonably foresee being hailed into court by them.

This was a super short response to a few things in the thread, and almost certainly NOT LEGAL ADVICE and I do not stand by the validity of any of my comments.

I'm merely curious about the legal status. Few people actually like Dotcom, but case has more than a faint whiff of extreme overreaching from the US, that it really has a lot of questions about precedence and jurisdiction. I'm not looking to act on any advice (nor do I have any connections to MU), but I'm curious about these potential outcomes.

That said, I didn't realise that even if a criminal case is won a civil suit can still take place. That's really crap.

A couple of other questions:- While I take your comments about Carpathia being a 'link', is there a different standard of service in civil cases to criminal cases? Because the Judge hasn't actually ruled as to whether the DOJ has actually successfully served MU in the first place yet.- In the event Dotcom and MU win the criminal case, and having had all their assets seized, do they remain seized in the civil case or will the FBI be forced to return assets prior to the civil case?- Does Dotcom and MU have any basis for countersuing the DOJ, RIAA and MPAA? From what I've heard, the US reserves the right to give permission to be sued as a federal entity or something ridiculous like that.

Im thinkin with this,when somebody uploaded something and it was said to be 'downloaded',it was actually something that was 'viewed' -via a web flash content thing. ? Or it was actually full file downloaded . Then the stuff that was uploaded was both authorized,and unauthorized content from stuff that was grabbed off of the tv screens ?

Then viewed worldwide via the web. The content was user generated,and viewed with a flash generated viewing. The user generated content was mostly stuff grabed from TV screens. ? Links to users files,where distributed between account holders of megaupload. Megaupload, had advertisers,and sponsors.

And Megaupload had many take down notices for links to the user generated content.

Certainly can't get enough tv in the third world. TV with Flash thats even a little better.

I don't know if you were meaning something different, but regardless of how you "view" content on the internet, it is always downloaded to your computer and played. It could be playing while it downloads (streaming), or it could be playing after it's downloaded (web sites, torrents, etc). And in some cases the content is deleted after the playing (streaming, typically).

But regardless of the methods of play, if you're reading, watching, and/or listening to something on the internet, you have downloaded it. It just may not be a permanent copy in the end, but that's mostly irrelevant to the legality.

Megaupload,is a tricky business model. Users dont wear the same mask that MPAA,and RIAA does. Megaupload made money for that model. And any model succeeding based on copyrighted that is a deficit to any holder. Users aren't necesarily self-employed,and proprietors are not exactly the management.

But the concept of rights holders,and use are not completely resolved by copyright law.

I would say do not put your 'fair-use',on to the web .

I'm just trying to sort through what was a normal state of 'behavior'- if you will. What actually was the Megaupload model of interaction.

If its a civil,verses civil thing. The users become third party. Megaupload should just settle,and rearange the model that offends the copyright holders.

This is going on 7 or 8 years past now. The effect of interaction,and engagement within Internet has many different customs type relationships. (customs,no punn intended).

You can't explain copyright to most 4th year college students,moreover,the authorization(s) emplementation between copyright holders themselves.

Na. If it was streamed,it was a public exhibition. A public exhibition with private viewing.

There is not an internet tax,or a media tax - as tax paid on CDs,tapes etc.. For this type of thing. The sort of thing that keeps the private argument private,and the public within itself happy.

As said by one poster,there was not a 'royalty paid'to copyright holders. But again,that is contract bearing issues. Authorizations are 'past tense'obligations. Known persons involved ...and so on.

You paint a fuzzy picture ... it's simple... if you are making money off of music, you have to pay a licensing fee, no exceptions. Outside of a charity using your song at a fundraiser which is what fair use is intended for.

I don't understand what basis or possible outcome the MPAA and RIAA have in these civil cases, given the DOJ case is a criminal case.

If the DOJ case fails (assuming it's actually tried in court), then doesn't Double Jeopardy apply? And although law rarely follows common sense, surely double jeopardy's related 'Blockburger' defence means a civil suit is enveloped in the wake of a criminal case, as it's supposed to have been tried to a more stringent test.

Similarly, if the DOJ succeeds, Dotcom et al will be sent to jail, and as the assets are already seized, these 'criminal proceeds' would then go to the aggrieved (ie the MPAA and RIAA) anyway, meaning there'd be nothing left for the outcome of the civil suits.

So my question is exactly how are these cases even relevant or even have a hope to get anything, or is it as Dotcom says and the DOJ case will fall down completely (in which case there will be no basis for extradition and the RIAA and MPAA have the same problems about being served as the DOJ had).

To answer your question quickly, you have a misunderstanding of double jeopardy. It just stops the state or federal government from prosecuting you twice for the same offense. It does not stop a private party from bringing a civil suit against someone. The most popular example is the OJ Simpson case. He was found not guilty by a jury, but taken to the cleaners in civil court. Also if Dotcom ens up being convicted I cannot even hazard a case what his sentence will be. That is determined at a sentencing hearing, but there is no saying either way if Dotcom will become judgment proof or see a day in jail until the sentencing hearing. So he may have money left over, or he may be completely broke.

Also what you need to keep in mind is that the MPAA and RIAA may not even be hoping to get any money from Dotcom, but instead to send a message to other people hosting file lockers/sharing sites. Look at any of the lawsuits brought against individuals, they spent way more money on the case than they'd ever hope to recover from the defendants.

Just a quick note on jurisdiction, (its been awhile so correct me if I'm a little outdated or mistaken), Dotcom's legal counsel can attempt to claim a lack of jurisdiction over him, but a very quick analysis would say he'd most likely fail in the civil suit due to his servers being in Virginia. If I remember correctly, the controlling cases are still International shoe, and world wide Volkswagen. Though the supreme court has done a really crappy job of actually defining/clarifying a test to determine jurisdiction, what it comes down to is whether there is minimal contact with the state and whether it would be fair to a defendant to have a trial in a certain jurisdiction. A good rule of thumb is could the defendant foresee being hailed into court/ or availing themselves of the court of a jurisdiction.

Without having all the facts or a look at the contract between carpathia(sp?) and Dotcom it seems that the minimal contact with them was there. They had used them for a few years, without any signs of them moving away from them. If carpathia were to not provide its service and breach the contract, it's very likely Dotcom would file a suit against them in Virginia. Or the opposite if Dotcom never paid his bill, he could reasonably foresee being hailed into court by them.

This was a super short response to a few things in the thread, and almost certainly NOT LEGAL ADVICE and I do not stand by the validity of any of my comments.

I'm merely curious about the legal status. Few people actually like Dotcom, but case has more than a faint whiff of extreme overreaching from the US, that it really has a lot of questions about precedence and jurisdiction. I'm not looking to act on any advice (nor do I have any connections to MU), but I'm curious about these potential outcomes.

That said, I didn't realise that even if a criminal case is won a civil suit can still take place. That's really crap.

A couple of other questions:- While I take your comments about Carpathia being a 'link', is there a different standard of service in civil cases to criminal cases? Because the Judge hasn't actually ruled as to whether the DOJ has actually successfully served MU in the first place yet.- In the event Dotcom and MU win the criminal case, and having had all their assets seized, do they remain seized in the civil case or will the FBI be forced to return assets prior to the civil case?- Does Dotcom and MU have any basis for countersuing the DOJ, RIAA and MPAA? From what I've heard, the US reserves the right to give permission to be sued as a federal entity or something ridiculous like that.

Actually it normally is just a civil matter. Except DotCom's worse problems are not releated to copyright infringement. I believe he's up on conspiracy to commit a crime and definitely racketeering. Ultimately that's what will put him behind bars. The civil copyright suits will just disburse his assets.

Im thinkin with this,when somebody uploaded something and it was said to be 'downloaded',it was actually something that was 'viewed' -via a web flash content thing. ? Or it was actually full file downloaded . Then the stuff that was uploaded was both authorized,and unauthorized content from stuff that was grabbed off of the tv screens ?

Then viewed worldwide via the web. The content was user generated,and viewed with a flash generated viewing. The user generated content was mostly stuff grabed from TV screens. ? Links to users files,where distributed between account holders of megaupload. Megaupload, had advertisers,and sponsors.

And Megaupload had many take down notices for links to the user generated content.

Certainly can't get enough tv in the third world. TV with Flash thats even a little better.

I don't know if you were meaning something different, but regardless of how you "view" content on the internet, it is always downloaded to your computer and played. It could be playing while it downloads (streaming), or it could be playing after it's downloaded (web sites, torrents, etc). And in some cases the content is deleted after the playing (streaming, typically).

But regardless of the methods of play, if you're reading, watching, and/or listening to something on the internet, you have downloaded it. It just may not be a permanent copy in the end, but that's mostly irrelevant to the legality.

Megaupload,is a tricky business model. Users dont wear the same mask that MPAA,and RIAA does. Megaupload made money for that model. And any model succeeding based on copyrighted that is a deficit to any holder. Users aren't necesarily self-employed,and proprietors are not exactly the management.

But the concept of rights holders,and use are not completely resolved by copyright law.

I would say do not put your 'fair-use',on to the web .

I'm just trying to sort through what was a normal state of 'behavior'- if you will. What actually was the Megaupload model of interaction.

If its a civil,verses civil thing. The users become third party. Megaupload should just settle,and rearange the model that offends the copyright holders.

This is going on 7 or 8 years past now. The effect of interaction,and engagement within Internet has many different customs type relationships. (customs,no punn intended).

You can't explain copyright to most 4th year college students,moreover,the authorization(s) emplementation between copyright holders themselves.

Na. If it was streamed,it was a public exhibition. A public exhibition with private viewing.

There is not an internet tax,or a media tax - as tax paid on CDs,tapes etc.. For this type of thing. The sort of thing that keeps the private argument private,and the public within itself happy.

As said by one poster,there was not a 'royalty paid'to copyright holders. But again,that is contract bearing issues. Authorizations are 'past tense'obligations. Known persons involved ...and so on.

You paint a fuzzy picture ... it's simple... if you are making money off of music, you have to pay a licensing fee, no exceptions. Outside of a charity using your song at a fundraiser which is what fair use is intended for.

I'm really not rationalizing copyright here. I'm considering the relationships that are involved to them. It could be said there are none. I would agree . Then there is nothing else to say. But since there is more to say. With copyright having nothing to do with it. Whats copyright got to do with anything ?

Blurry more like it. Silent,maybe comatose . Perhaps. Four walls with a 2x4" light opening in the doorway. Thats the picture. No way in . With no way out . Then no way of getting over. Is that what copyright is about ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but even if Mega lost why would they pay? They're not based in the USA right? RIAA = USA right?

It depends where their funds are. If their bank accounts are within the jurisdiction of the US (or a country that will accept US judgement under some form of reciprocity agreement), the plaintiffs can access the money directly.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

A company entity, even a foreign company entity, is subject to U.S. law for any financial transaction or thing to do with that transaction, conducted in or through the United States. Its the same in 90% of other countries as well for subjecting the company entity, even a foreign company entity, to the laws of that country for any financial transaction, or things to do with that transaction, conducted in or through that country. For those transactions or things to do with those transactions, the DMCA doesn't apply. DotCom through the "Mega enterprises", because DotCom is the primary business entity of the "Mega enterprises", conducted financial transactions in or through the U.S. so is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. He, as a business entity, leased servers in the U.S. and used pay services based in the U.S. that involved and supported the payments or income made concerning the infringing material and the servers supported that enterprise.

If there had been no payments (or income) to others concerning infringing material then maybe some argument of the DMCA could apply, but once there was that financial transaction happened in or through the U.S. it became criminal copyright infringement and thus the criminal case.

payment for, or income from, infringement also applies to civil copyright infringement but is applied in a different context dealing primarily with the infringement its self so its possible a DMCA argument could have weight but if financial transactions for or concerning the infringing material in or through the U.S were involved the DMCA would not apply as one can not effectively claim DMCA protection while paying people for, or making income as a result of, the infringing material.

DMCA is negated as a protection defense as DMCA does not protect payment for, or income from, infringement. That's essentially basically what DotCom is accused of, payment for, or income from, infringement.

Now it remains for the government to prove their criminal case, and for the MPAA and RIAA to prove their civil case.

Then why wait twenty-seven months before doing anything? The DoJ committed criminal acts in the pursuit of Dotcom, they intentionally tainted evidence by illegally, as found in a court of law, removing the context with the assistance of a private entity (NZFACT, which is NOT a government agency) in the raid, along with an FBI agent on the ground at the compound (in spite of the fact that the FBI's province wsi within the federal jurisdiction, and not extra-national).

IT just smacks of corporate bullying, and doesn't actually endear anyone ot their cause.

I'm assuming you are referring to the MPAA and RIAA cases and you are assuming the MPAA and RIAA are using the evidence from the NZ case. They could make their case based upon the infringing material or information found from the server seizures here in the U.S. However, since civil infringement needs the infringement to be discovered and doesn't require discovery to have been generated by investigative or discovery efforts of the party bringing the suit (its only needed that it was discovered, the law doesn't prescribe by what manner it needs to be discovered), with the criminal case evidence recently released by the DOJ it would be considered "discovered" simply through the DOJ released evidence and was compelling enough to bring suit, if that evidence is from the server's seized in the U.S. then nothing from NZ has any bearing. The "beyond reasonable doubt" and "fruit of the poison tree" burden doesn't exist in civil lawsuits like it does in criminal cases, its only needed to show the court or jury to a degree of reasonable certainty that it did happen. Now remains the MPAA and RIAA burden to show the court or jury to a reasonable degree of certainty that it did happen, if they don't they don't and if they do they do.

The time doesn't matter as long as its filed before the statute of limitations or some other statutory time requirement expires.Their case, their time table.

So let me test my understanding here - evidence obtained illegally by a government agency can be used against someone in a civil case by a private corporate entity, as the information has been considered public. Am I right in reading it that way?

Because, if so, that is a huge fail of the civil suit system. Tainted evidence without context should not be permitted in a civil case. PERIOD. Because lacking that context, the evidence is of literally no value to the suit.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

A company entity, even a foreign company entity, is subject to U.S. law for any financial transaction or thing to do with that transaction, conducted in or through the United States. Its the same in 90% of other countries as well for subjecting the company entity, even a foreign company entity, to the laws of that country for any financial transaction, or things to do with that transaction, conducted in or through that country. For those transactions or things to do with those transactions, the DMCA doesn't apply. DotCom through the "Mega enterprises", because DotCom is the primary business entity of the "Mega enterprises", conducted financial transactions in or through the U.S. so is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. He, as a business entity, leased servers in the U.S. and used pay services based in the U.S. that involved and supported the payments or income made concerning the infringing material and the servers supported that enterprise.

If there had been no payments (or income) to others concerning infringing material then maybe some argument of the DMCA could apply, but once there was that financial transaction happened in or through the U.S. it became criminal copyright infringement and thus the criminal case.

payment for, or income from, infringement also applies to civil copyright infringement but is applied in a different context dealing primarily with the infringement its self so its possible a DMCA argument could have weight but if financial transactions for or concerning the infringing material in or through the U.S were involved the DMCA would not apply as one can not effectively claim DMCA protection while paying people for, or making income as a result of, the infringing material.

DMCA is negated as a protection defense as DMCA does not protect payment for, or income from, infringement. That's essentially basically what DotCom is accused of, payment for, or income from, infringement.

Now it remains for the government to prove their criminal case, and for the MPAA and RIAA to prove their civil case.

Then why wait twenty-seven months before doing anything? The DoJ committed criminal acts in the pursuit of Dotcom, they intentionally tainted evidence by illegally, as found in a court of law, removing the context with the assistance of a private entity (NZFACT, which is NOT a government agency) in the raid, along with an FBI agent on the ground at the compound (in spite of the fact that the FBI's province wsi within the federal jurisdiction, and not extra-national).

IT just smacks of corporate bullying, and doesn't actually endear anyone ot their cause.

I'm assuming you are referring to the MPAA and RIAA cases and you are assuming the MPAA and RIAA are using the evidence from the NZ case. They could make their case based upon the infringing material or information found from the server seizures here in the U.S. However, since civil infringement needs the infringement to be discovered and doesn't require discovery to have been generated by investigative or discovery efforts of the party bringing the suit (its only needed that it was discovered, the law doesn't prescribe by what manner it needs to be discovered), with the criminal case evidence recently released by the DOJ it would be considered "discovered" simply through the DOJ released evidence and was compelling enough to bring suit, if that evidence is from the server's seized in the U.S. then nothing from NZ has any bearing. The "beyond reasonable doubt" and "fruit of the poison tree" burden doesn't exist in civil lawsuits like it does in criminal cases, its only needed to show the court or jury to a degree of reasonable certainty that it did happen. Now remains the MPAA and RIAA burden to show the court or jury to a reasonable degree of certainty that it did happen, if they don't they don't and if they do they do.

The time doesn't matter as long as its filed before the statute of limitations or some other statutory time requirement expires.Their case, their time table.

So let me test my understanding here - evidence obtained illegally by a government agency can be used against someone in a civil case by a private corporate entity, as the information has been considered public. Am I right in reading it that way?

Because, if so, that is a huge fail of the civil suit system. Tainted evidence without context should not be permitted in a civil case. PERIOD. Because lacking that context, the evidence is of literally no value to the suit.

No, you are not reading it the right way.

1. The evidence in the RIAA lawsuit is not "tainted" ("fruit of the poison tree") as you assume. You were making the argument assuming the evidence from NZ is being used or the actions in NZ somehow have a bearing on the RIAA case, that's not true. The evidence as the result of servers seized in the U.S. is whats being used by the RIAA and what was released by the DOJ. Those servers were seized legally and were fully in U.S. jurisdiction.

2. You are generalizing. The NZ thing has nothing to do with the RIAA civil case, it has to do with the material/information as a result of servers seized in the U.S.

3. Of course material/information used in a civil case can't have been illegally obtained, that's kind of obvious and I did not think it needed to be said. However, the "legally obtained" used in criminal cases changes for civil lawsuit meaning and including "legitimately obtained", there is a big difference. "legally obtained" means obtained via some legal means approved or accepted by the court such as, for example, a search warrant for seizure of things or subpoena etc.... . "legitimately obtained" for a civil lawsuit is any material/information obtained via any method or manner and not obtained via illegal means and is for the case in the purpose of presenting a degree of reasonable certainty the "something" (infringement in this case) happened or not. The information for the RIAA case was "legitimately obtained", its information the DOJ released legally and that information came as a result of servers legally seized in the U.S., and as the law does not prescribe a method or manner required for discovery of infringement in civil cases or that the discovery must come from the fruits of the investigative or discovery work of the party bringing the suit the discovery was via that information/material "legitimately obtained" by the RIAA thus fulfilling the need for discovery of infringement to have standing for the civil infringement case (the RIAA lawsuit).

Im thinkin with this,when somebody uploaded something and it was said to be 'downloaded',it was actually something that was 'viewed' -via a web flash content thing. ? Or it was actually full file downloaded . Then the stuff that was uploaded was both authorized,and unauthorized content from stuff that was grabbed off of the tv screens ?

Then viewed worldwide via the web. The content was user generated,and viewed with a flash generated viewing. The user generated content was mostly stuff grabed from TV screens. ? Links to users files,where distributed between account holders of megaupload. Megaupload, had advertisers,and sponsors.

And Megaupload had many take down notices for links to the user generated content.

Certainly can't get enough tv in the third world. TV with Flash thats even a little better.

I don't know if you were meaning something different, but regardless of how you "view" content on the internet, it is always downloaded to your computer and played. It could be playing while it downloads (streaming), or it could be playing after it's downloaded (web sites, torrents, etc). And in some cases the content is deleted after the playing (streaming, typically).

But regardless of the methods of play, if you're reading, watching, and/or listening to something on the internet, you have downloaded it. It just may not be a permanent copy in the end, but that's mostly irrelevant to the legality.

Megaupload,is a tricky business model. Users dont wear the same mask that MPAA,and RIAA does. Megaupload made money for that model. And any model succeeding based on copyrighted that is a deficit to any holder. Users aren't necesarily self-employed,and proprietors are not exactly the management.

But the concept of rights holders,and use are not completely resolved by copyright law.

I would say do not put your 'fair-use',on to the web .

I'm just trying to sort through what was a normal state of 'behavior'- if you will. What actually was the Megaupload model of interaction.

If its a civil,verses civil thing. The users become third party. Megaupload should just settle,and rearange the model that offends the copyright holders.

This is going on 7 or 8 years past now. The effect of interaction,and engagement within Internet has many different customs type relationships. (customs,no punn intended).

You can't explain copyright to most 4th year college students,moreover,the authorization(s) emplementation between copyright holders themselves.

Na. If it was streamed,it was a public exhibition. A public exhibition with private viewing.

There is not an internet tax,or a media tax - as tax paid on CDs,tapes etc.. For this type of thing. The sort of thing that keeps the private argument private,and the public within itself happy.

As said by one poster,there was not a 'royalty paid'to copyright holders. But again,that is contract bearing issues. Authorizations are 'past tense'obligations. Known persons involved ...and so on.

You paint a fuzzy picture ... it's simple... if you are making money off of music, you have to pay a licensing fee, no exceptions. Outside of a charity using your song at a fundraiser which is what fair use is intended for.

It's not that simple. If you have an office, and you play music in the background, you have to pay even though you're not 'making money off of music.'

Or how about restaurants having to pay to sing 'Happy Birthday'?

And then there's the fiasco where the Girl Scouts got sued for singing around their campfires...

I don't understand what basis or possible outcome the MPAA and RIAA have in these civil cases, given the DOJ case is a criminal case.

If the DOJ case fails (assuming it's actually tried in court), then doesn't Double Jeopardy apply? And although law rarely follows common sense, surely double jeopardy's related 'Blockburger' defence means a civil suit is enveloped in the wake of a criminal case, as it's supposed to have been tried to a more stringent test.

Similarly, if the DOJ succeeds, Dotcom et al will be sent to jail, and as the assets are already seized, these 'criminal proceeds' would then go to the aggrieved (ie the MPAA and RIAA) anyway, meaning there'd be nothing left for the outcome of the civil suits.

So my question is exactly how are these cases even relevant or even have a hope to get anything, or is it as Dotcom says and the DOJ case will fall down completely (in which case there will be no basis for extradition and the RIAA and MPAA have the same problems about being served as the DOJ had).

To answer your question quickly, you have a misunderstanding of double jeopardy. It just stops the state or federal government from prosecuting you twice for the same offense. It does not stop a private party from bringing a civil suit against someone. The most popular example is the OJ Simpson case. He was found not guilty by a jury, but taken to the cleaners in civil court. Also if Dotcom ens up being convicted I cannot even hazard a case what his sentence will be. That is determined at a sentencing hearing, but there is no saying either way if Dotcom will become judgment proof or see a day in jail until the sentencing hearing. So he may have money left over, or he may be completely broke.

Also what you need to keep in mind is that the MPAA and RIAA may not even be hoping to get any money from Dotcom, but instead to send a message to other people hosting file lockers/sharing sites. Look at any of the lawsuits brought against individuals, they spent way more money on the case than they'd ever hope to recover from the defendants.

Just a quick note on jurisdiction, (its been awhile so correct me if I'm a little outdated or mistaken), Dotcom's legal counsel can attempt to claim a lack of jurisdiction over him, but a very quick analysis would say he'd most likely fail in the civil suit due to his servers being in Virginia. If I remember correctly, the controlling cases are still International shoe, and world wide Volkswagen. Though the supreme court has done a really crappy job of actually defining/clarifying a test to determine jurisdiction, what it comes down to is whether there is minimal contact with the state and whether it would be fair to a defendant to have a trial in a certain jurisdiction. A good rule of thumb is could the defendant foresee being hailed into court/ or availing themselves of the court of a jurisdiction.

Without having all the facts or a look at the contract between carpathia(sp?) and Dotcom it seems that the minimal contact with them was there. They had used them for a few years, without any signs of them moving away from them. If carpathia were to not provide its service and breach the contract, it's very likely Dotcom would file a suit against them in Virginia. Or the opposite if Dotcom never paid his bill, he could reasonably foresee being hailed into court by them.

This was a super short response to a few things in the thread, and almost certainly NOT LEGAL ADVICE and I do not stand by the validity of any of my comments.

I'm merely curious about the legal status. Few people actually like Dotcom, but case has more than a faint whiff of extreme overreaching from the US, that it really has a lot of questions about precedence and jurisdiction. I'm not looking to act on any advice (nor do I have any connections to MU), but I'm curious about these potential outcomes.

That said, I didn't realise that even if a criminal case is won a civil suit can still take place. That's really crap.

A couple of other questions:- While I take your comments about Carpathia being a 'link', is there a different standard of service in civil cases to criminal cases? Because the Judge hasn't actually ruled as to whether the DOJ has actually successfully served MU in the first place yet.- In the event Dotcom and MU win the criminal case, and having had all their assets seized, do they remain seized in the civil case or will the FBI be forced to return assets prior to the civil case?- Does Dotcom and MU have any basis for countersuing the DOJ, RIAA and MPAA? From what I've heard, the US reserves the right to give permission to be sued as a federal entity or something ridiculous like that.

Actually it normally is just a civil matter. Except DotCom's worse problems are not releated to copyright infringement. I believe he's up on conspiracy to commit a crime and definitely racketeering. Ultimately that's what will put him behind bars. The civil copyright suits will just disburse his assets.

If all it is is conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering, how does the US have jurisdiction? The only thing he did involving the US was lease server space.

If all it is is conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering, how does the US have jurisdiction? The only thing he did involving the US was lease server space.

No, lease server space in the U.S. is not the only thing he did. He conducted financial transactions in and through the U.S. (for payment or income from or as a result of infringing material) as a business entity. All business entities, foreign or not, who conduct financial transactions in and through the U.S. become subject to U.S. jurisdiction for those financial transactions. The servers in the U.S. were used for the infringement used to facilitate, and make profit from, the infringement for those financial transactions. He, as a business entity, used Pay Pal for those financial transactions and Pay Pal is incorporated and headquartered in the U.S. so he, as a business entity, conducted those financial transactions in and through the U.S. thus came under U.S. jurisdiction due to those financial transactions.

The conspiracy part rises from that others involved with him that also received financial compensation (financial gain) as a result of the infringement. In short, they conspired together to make money from the infringement. It was for-profit infringement, a felony that carries an up to five year sentence, and is a crime. There were others involved with him in benefiting financially in doing this. Racketeering (the RICO act) doesn't just pertain to criminal organizations (mafia, cartel, etc...) only, under RICO a person or group of people can be charged with racketeering if multiple violations of certain varieties within a ten-year period are conducted, or the group or organization financially benefits from multiple violations of a crime (usually on going - persons engaged in illegal enterprises for profit) (each infringement for profit is a crime), organized crime is partially defined by the DOJ as "The unlawful activities of a highly organized, disciplined association", thus (collectively) the racketeering.

So, using the terminology "conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering", in U.S. jurisdiction (via those financial transactions with money payed for, and financial gain-profit in millions of dollars from, the infringement).

of course, its all alleged until conviction in the criminal case or held liable in a civil case.

If all it is is conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering, how does the US have jurisdiction? The only thing he did involving the US was lease server space.

No, lease server space in the U.S. is not the only thing he did. He conducted financial transactions in and through the U.S. (for payment or income from or as a result of infringing material) as a business entity. All business entities, foreign or not, who conduct financial transactions in and through the U.S. become subject to U.S. jurisdiction for those financial transactions. The servers in the U.S. were used for the infringement used to facilitate, and make profit from, the infringement for those financial transactions. He, as a business entity, used Pay Pal for those financial transactions and Pay Pal is incorporated and headquartered in the U.S. so he, as a business entity, conducted those financial transactions in and through the U.S. thus came under U.S. jurisdiction due to those financial transactions.

The conspiracy part rises from that others involved with him that also received financial compensation (financial gain) as a result of the infringement. In short, they conspired together to make money from the infringement. It was for-profit infringement, a felony that carries an up to five year sentence, and is a crime. There were others involved with him in benefiting financially in doing this. Racketeering (the RICO act) doesn't just pertain to criminal organizations (mafia, cartel, etc...) only, under RICO a person or group of people can be charged with racketeering if multiple violations of certain varieties within a ten-year period are conducted, or the group or organization financially benefits from multiple violations of a crime (usually on going - persons engaged in illegal enterprises for profit) (each infringement for profit is a crime), organized crime is partially defined by the DOJ as "The unlawful activities of a highly organized, disciplined association", thus (collectively) the racketeering.

So, as you termed it, "conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering", in U.S. jurisdiction (via those financial transactions with money payed for, and financial gain-profit in millions of dollars from, the infringement).

I didn't term it that way, someone else did, and I simply used their terminology in response.

If all it is is conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering, how does the US have jurisdiction? The only thing he did involving the US was lease server space.

No, lease server space in the U.S. is not the only thing he did. He conducted financial transactions in and through the U.S. (for payment or income from or as a result of infringing material) as a business entity. All business entities, foreign or not, who conduct financial transactions in and through the U.S. become subject to U.S. jurisdiction for those financial transactions. The servers in the U.S. were used for the infringement used to facilitate, and make profit from, the infringement for those financial transactions. He, as a business entity, used Pay Pal for those financial transactions and Pay Pal is incorporated and headquartered in the U.S. so he, as a business entity, conducted those financial transactions in and through the U.S. thus came under U.S. jurisdiction due to those financial transactions.

The conspiracy part rises from that others involved with him that also received financial compensation (financial gain) as a result of the infringement. In short, they conspired together to make money from the infringement. It was for-profit infringement, a felony that carries an up to five year sentence, and is a crime. There were others involved with him in benefiting financially in doing this. Racketeering (the RICO act) doesn't just pertain to criminal organizations (mafia, cartel, etc...) only, under RICO a person or group of people can be charged with racketeering if multiple violations of certain varieties within a ten-year period are conducted, or the group or organization financially benefits from multiple violations of a crime (usually on going - persons engaged in illegal enterprises for profit) (each infringement for profit is a crime), organized crime is partially defined by the DOJ as "The unlawful activities of a highly organized, disciplined association", thus (collectively) the racketeering.

So, as you termed it, "conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering", in U.S. jurisdiction (via those financial transactions with money payed for, and financial gain-profit in millions of dollars from, the infringement).

I didn't term it that way, someone else did, and I simply used their terminology in response.

If all it is is conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering, how does the US have jurisdiction? The only thing he did involving the US was lease server space.

No, lease server space in the U.S. is not the only thing he did. He conducted financial transactions in and through the U.S. (for payment or income from or as a result of infringing material) as a business entity. All business entities, foreign or not, who conduct financial transactions in and through the U.S. become subject to U.S. jurisdiction for those financial transactions. The servers in the U.S. were used for the infringement used to facilitate, and make profit from, the infringement for those financial transactions. He, as a business entity, used Pay Pal for those financial transactions and Pay Pal is incorporated and headquartered in the U.S. so he, as a business entity, conducted those financial transactions in and through the U.S. thus came under U.S. jurisdiction due to those financial transactions.

The conspiracy part rises from that others involved with him that also received financial compensation (financial gain) as a result of the infringement. In short, they conspired together to make money from the infringement. It was for-profit infringement, a felony that carries an up to five year sentence, and is a crime. There were others involved with him in benefiting financially in doing this. Racketeering (the RICO act) doesn't just pertain to criminal organizations (mafia, cartel, etc...) only, under RICO a person or group of people can be charged with racketeering if multiple violations of certain varieties within a ten-year period are conducted, or the group or organization financially benefits from multiple violations of a crime (usually on going - persons engaged in illegal enterprises for profit) (each infringement for profit is a crime), organized crime is partially defined by the DOJ as "The unlawful activities of a highly organized, disciplined association", thus (collectively) the racketeering.

So, as you termed it, "conspiracy to commit a crime and racketeering", in U.S. jurisdiction (via those financial transactions with money payed for, and financial gain-profit in millions of dollars from, the infringement).

I didn't term it that way, someone else did, and I simply used their terminology in response.

So if I sell something online, and someone in Germany buys it, and it happens to be illegal in Germany, I can get extradited to Germany?

Let's say I rent servers in Germany, and put something on those servers that's illegal in Germany. Can the German police (or whatever their version of the FBI is) come to my house in the US and try to arrest me?

You paint a fuzzy picture ... it's simple... if you are making money off of music, you have to pay a licensing fee, no exceptions. Outside of a charity using your song at a fundraiser which is what fair use is intended for.

It's not that simple. If you have an office, and you play music in the background, you have to pay even though you're not 'making money off of music.'

Or how about restaurants having to pay to sing 'Happy Birthday'?

And then there's the fiasco where the Girl Scouts got sued for singing around their campfires...

Wait a minute, they're suing living people now? They've certainly fine-tuned their litigation targetting system as of late, I see. No more dead grandmother lawsuits!

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

A company entity, even a foreign company entity, is subject to U.S. law for any financial transaction or thing to do with that transaction, conducted in or through the United States. Its the same in 90% of other countries as well for subjecting the company entity, even a foreign company entity, to the laws of that country for any financial transaction, or things to do with that transaction, conducted in or through that country. For those transactions or things to do with those transactions, the DMCA doesn't apply. DotCom through the "Mega enterprises", because DotCom is the primary business entity of the "Mega enterprises", conducted financial transactions in or through the U.S. so is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. He, as a business entity, leased servers in the U.S. and used pay services based in the U.S. that involved and supported the payments or income made concerning the infringing material and the servers supported that enterprise.

If there had been no payments (or income) to others concerning infringing material then maybe some argument of the DMCA could apply, but once there was that financial transaction happened in or through the U.S. it became criminal copyright infringement and thus the criminal case.

payment for, or income from, infringement also applies to civil copyright infringement but is applied in a different context dealing primarily with the infringement its self so its possible a DMCA argument could have weight but if financial transactions for or concerning the infringing material in or through the U.S were involved the DMCA would not apply as one can not effectively claim DMCA protection while paying people for, or making income as a result of, the infringing material.

DMCA is negated as a protection defense as DMCA does not protect payment for, or income from, infringement. That's essentially basically what DotCom is accused of, payment for, or income from, infringement.

Now it remains for the government to prove their criminal case, and for the MPAA and RIAA to prove their civil case.

Then why wait twenty-seven months before doing anything? The DoJ committed criminal acts in the pursuit of Dotcom, they intentionally tainted evidence by illegally, as found in a court of law, removing the context with the assistance of a private entity (NZFACT, which is NOT a government agency) in the raid, along with an FBI agent on the ground at the compound (in spite of the fact that the FBI's province wsi within the federal jurisdiction, and not extra-national).

IT just smacks of corporate bullying, and doesn't actually endear anyone ot their cause.

So, do you want punishment for a crime to happen much quicker? To just materialize out of thin air increasing risk of, for lack of a better word, malpractice and abuse of the law due to ignorance and a rush to judgement to occur? Building cases don't happen over night. Developing para military plans such as this don't happen overnight as well.

Perhaps I may be misunderstanding what you're getting at, because largely I have no sympathy for pirates in general, so I admittedly don't research much into their side of the argument (which the same can be said for the converse, I'm sure). Even if you do not agree with the position, the pro-music/movie industry is claiming that files were allegedly illegally created, obtained, and distributed. Surely, there must be SOME defense for a corporation, or a business (large or small), for seeking justice for crimes committed, correct?

This being said, are you saying that you believe the laws in general are unjust? Being implemented in a way that is unjust? The interference of the government(s) into this case is unjust? I can understand the first two, though I disagree. The third, however, is going over my head; this seems to be SOP. Any help would be appreciated, or some links to point me in the right direction.

A candy? this guy got mega rich profiting from copyrighted works . He was quite confident of the way he systematically was exploiting the legal loop

Actually, Dotcom got rich by selling premium access to the digitial locker that he ran. It just so happened that users of that service were uploading copyrighted content that they did not have distribution rights for, and those same users were making links available for others to download that content.

This sort of user action is exactly what the DMCA safe harbour provisions cover. In order for Dotcom to be found guilty of copyright infringement, he needs to be aware that specific, individual files were infringing and to do nothing about those files. Even then, he can only be found to have infringed on those specific files and not everything else that may have been stored on Megaupload.

That's how the relevant copyright law is worded, anyway. The FBI and *IAA are trying to put a very different spin on the law, and are trying to make Megaupload and Dotcom liable because they had general knowledge that infringing files were being shared through their service.

The "general knowledge" factor is what's really at stake here. If the courts find that general knowledge of infringing content is sufficient, it could end in lawsuits against most of the various digital locker and media sharing services. Those that don't pay huge licensing costs, anyway.

I'm curious how they served Megaupload, a now essentially defunct foreign corporate entity. Just wondering how that works.

There is a bit of a question around how Megaupload (the company) was served on the criminal suit. The relevant statutes say that notice must be served to the last known company address in the US, but Megaupload never had an address in the US. It's quite possible that the company has never legally been served, and that it might get dropped from the criminal suit.

I'm not sure how things will work in the civil suits. Megaupload never had a physical presence in the US, so didn't have any physical assets to seize. The only equipment that was seized was Carpathia's, and was being leased by Megaupload. I'm not sure about the various bank accounts that have been frozen, or where they are located, and whether they can be touched at all.